Much like the “shock and awe” campaign that lit up the Baghdad night in March 2003, any initial military clash between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran would quickly downgrade into a certifiable “turkey shoot.”

Kevin McClintock

This is Part 1 of a 3-part series that will take detailed looks at the fighting capacity of three U.S. opponents in potential future wars. This week's column will focus on Iran. Future columns will focus on the threats posed by North Korea and China.

Much like the “shock and awe” campaign that lit up the Baghdad night in March 2003, any initial military clash between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran would quickly downgrade into a certifiable “turkey shoot.”

While former President Bush dismissed talk of an American invasion of Iran as “ridiculous,” and President Obama has reached out a warm and fuzzy peace feeler and remained almost mum on the current crackdown to the outbreak of democracy, there’s still a visible wave of distrust and downright hatred between the two countries. Take, for instance, recent words by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declaring that a disputed election result would stand, despite street protests that Iranian officials say Britain and the United States have incited. That hatred could, seemingly at any moment quickly spill over into war, particularly if problems stem from either Iraq or weapons of mass destruction.

If war did break out, the initial clash of arms would be overwhelming in part due to superior U.S. firepower in all strategic areas (air, land, sea), as well as Iranian military exhaustion. Even today, and despite the internal chaos now gripping the country, Iran is still struggling to overcome the military drain it received from eight bloody years of war against Saddam's former Iraq.

Similar to what the world is now seeing in Afghanistan and has seen in neighboring Iraq since 2003, it’s likely any invasion of Iran would spark a similar insurgency and subsequent Islamic proclamations for “Jihad.” Such resistance — dubbed “asymmetrical” guerrilla warfare — is truly the only reliable means Iranian leaders would possess in blunting America's superior firepower and technology. Iranian leaders have already said as much. On the other hand, clearly the U.S.

armed forces has — and continues to gain — valuable combat experience with each passing month in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and no doubt new fighting strategies would be introduced and implemented in the months following an invasion, no doubt ensuring the mistakes made in Iraq wouldn’t be repeated in Iran. Regardless, hunting down and eradicating insurgents and terrorists, sadly, seems to be the future of warfare well into the 21st Century.

Unlike the mechanized Iraqi army, the Iranian land forces are comprised primarily of infantry divisions — 29, to be exact. A half-dozen armored divisions compliment these troops. Remember, it was the Iranian infantry — and thousands of Basiji militiamen — that launched massed human waves at Iraqi defenses, with most of the “participants” under the age of 10. Some even linked arms or kicked soccer balls out in front of them as they blissfully marched into the minefields.

Iranian officials said last year they could generate a 7 million-strong insurgent army comprised of Basiji militia should America dare attack.

Current Iranian infantry strength stands at roughly 500,000 soldiers, including an additional 220,000 conscripts available for combat duty.

Armored divisions field approximately 2,000 tanks, mostly antiquated Russian tanks — T-54 and T-72 Models. These are the same types of tanks that were grossly overmatched during the 1991 Gulf War. There are also 2,400 armored personnel vehicles; 13,000 infantry mortars; dozens of Russian Scud and North Korean Shahab missiles; and roughly 4,600 artillery pieces.

“Most of Iran’s military equipment is aging or second rate, and much of it is worn,” wrote military expert Anthony Cordesman in a 2004 assessment.

Despite being able to field American-made F-14 Tomcats, experts say the Iranian air force is just as “worn,” able to launch less than 1,000 warplanes, mostly Iranian copies of the old American F-5; dozens of Russian Mig-29 and Su-24 models; and Chinese Chengdu F-7s.

As the Iraqis discovered in 1991 and again in 2003, America doesn't fight fair. They wage war at night, in bad weather, and can punch from a great distance. As before, the U.S. won't fight a one-dimensional, set-piece battlefield slug match, the type of warfare Iranians are trained for. With overwhelming air superiority, artillery capabilities that are second-to-none and with tanks able to maneuver at 70 mph, any Iranian static defense ringing a city or human militia charge would end in total annihilation.

As far as a detailed war plan goes, well, Iran is even more isolated by American forces than Iraq was in 2003. The U.S. currently fields 138,000 troops in Iraq, another 20,000 in Kuwait and now more than 40,500 in Afghanistan. Attack prongs would initiate west from Iraq and east from Afghanistan, with air elements launched from Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and new bases recently built in the former Soviet nations of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.
Unless Obama was to initiate a draft — an unpopular move that hasn't been implemented since the 1960s — an invasion of Iran would either have to wait until the current Taliban-led insurgency in neighboring Afghanistan has been quelled or its ranks padded by troops pulling out of Iraq or brought in from Western Europe and South Korea.

Only time will tell if Iran becomes the “war on terror's” third battlefield since the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin McClintock is a staff writer for The Carthage Press

Next week: North Korea

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Sister Publications

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Times Reporter ~ 629 Wabash Ave. NW New Philadelphia, OH 44663 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service